SuperAbsolut said:Ill take on France as a perm.
AAR rewards updated.
Fredrik82 said:
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
AAR rewards updated.
Wow, 2% deflation for a huge AAR. Perfect for an inflationist like myself. I would write a novel after each session
Only 3-4 of the players write AARs in this game, hopefully this will change that.Daniel A said:Wow, 2% deflation for a huge AAR. Perfect for an inflationist like myself. I would write a novel after each session
missing galleys...
I made a small inquiry into the issue of built but never appeared ships. In the shipyard port of Essex I had my main flotilla with an explorer AND regular admiral commanding. This means that the newly built ships appear in a separate flotilla and when they are merged they dont add to the double leader flotilla. The appeared in the maintenance window but where not on map after the rehost. In any case it was 70 galleys that vanished right before the Danish expedition. In the stats they appear as attritioned warships for some reason?
I made a small inquiry into the issue of built but never appeared ships. In the shipyard port of Essex I had my main flotilla with an explorer AND regular admiral commanding. This means that the newly built ships appear in a separate flotilla and when they are merged they dont add to the double leader flotilla. The appeared in the maintenance window but where not on map after the rehost. In any case it was 70 galleys that vanished right before the Danish expedition. In the stats they appear as attritioned warships for some reason?
It was a fun session. Managed to set up some TPs in fur country in Canada. Other then that...it was kinda boring...but I shall not quit before I have made Poland into something.
As for my eventual AAR reward, I would sooner like to have one DP-click towards CENT, or more then one....I could pay up with my treasury...pretty please....
As for my eventual AAR reward, I would sooner like to have one DP-click towards CENT, or more then one....I could pay up with my treasury...pretty please....
Issue of Portugal...
Although I vowed to not engage in discusssions regarding this campaign I will state my personal feelings toward the diplomatc annexation of a playerless Portugal last night.
Considering this is an experimental campaign where we are to find out the balance and imbalance of the scenario this feels unfortunate. I do appreciate Lurkens wish to remain in a more or less "doomed" Poland but I feel that I must question the efforts to replace Portugal, (no recruitment in this thread?) as a player nation considering how fast it was diploannexed, preventing all future attempts to do this. As a GM playing Spain, prefering to fill Poland over Portugal, I find questionable considering the effects of the game clearly visible to all experienced players of the game. I can't help wondering how I would have felt if I had played Russia in this game. I can't say I totally agree with the motivation for this behaviour, being that "one can't force a player to move if they don't want to". I do think Lurken would have moved if heavily encouraged or forced to do so while Portugal was in good shape which makes this unfortunate business even more suspicious.
Enough said about this. It's a real pleasure playing on the new map and I hope this will not prevent us from finishing a reasonably balanced campaign. It's just a shame that Denmark and Portugal weren't played by skilled players.
Although I vowed to not engage in discusssions regarding this campaign I will state my personal feelings toward the diplomatc annexation of a playerless Portugal last night.
Considering this is an experimental campaign where we are to find out the balance and imbalance of the scenario this feels unfortunate. I do appreciate Lurkens wish to remain in a more or less "doomed" Poland but I feel that I must question the efforts to replace Portugal, (no recruitment in this thread?) as a player nation considering how fast it was diploannexed, preventing all future attempts to do this. As a GM playing Spain, prefering to fill Poland over Portugal, I find questionable considering the effects of the game clearly visible to all experienced players of the game. I can't help wondering how I would have felt if I had played Russia in this game. I can't say I totally agree with the motivation for this behaviour, being that "one can't force a player to move if they don't want to". I do think Lurken would have moved if heavily encouraged or forced to do so while Portugal was in good shape which makes this unfortunate business even more suspicious.
Enough said about this. It's a real pleasure playing on the new map and I hope this will not prevent us from finishing a reasonably balanced campaign. It's just a shame that Denmark and Portugal weren't played by skilled players.
Well i believe that this campaign is a good example, that something should indeed be changed for future campaigns.
Spain is far to powerfull, which ofc. came from the missing Portugal, and therefore Spain could take all the gold in Americas long before anyone else found it. Way to little competition.
BB and Russia seems a bit hampered by a Poland, which has given them all problems to expand, which could had raised them to the level of most other countries. But that should have been obvious from the start with so many countries placed next to each other.
Venice has the usual problem which is no histroric leaders that can match either Austria, France, OE or Spain, who all have abundand leaders.
Spain is far to powerfull, which ofc. came from the missing Portugal, and therefore Spain could take all the gold in Americas long before anyone else found it. Way to little competition.
BB and Russia seems a bit hampered by a Poland, which has given them all problems to expand, which could had raised them to the level of most other countries. But that should have been obvious from the start with so many countries placed next to each other.
Venice has the usual problem which is no histroric leaders that can match either Austria, France, OE or Spain, who all have abundand leaders.
Juv,
i see your point. But remember that we had difficulties finding players to the more importent nations, France and Austria. All of those i asked didn't want to play Portugal. And please do remember that Portugal was played the first three sessions.
This Portugal didn't have much colonies, so me annexing it was hardly game breaking. Considering i already was present at India, south africa and parts of Brazil before i annexed Portugal.
i see your point. But remember that we had difficulties finding players to the more importent nations, France and Austria. All of those i asked didn't want to play Portugal. And please do remember that Portugal was played the first three sessions.
This Portugal didn't have much colonies, so me annexing it was hardly game breaking. Considering i already was present at India, south africa and parts of Brazil before i annexed Portugal.
Aladar said:
I dont quite agree with you. Spain annexing Portugal only raised its income with 10-15, maybe 20% which although substantial has nothing to do with it snagging all the gold in Americas which Spain does in any campaign. What you righly point out is that the missing Portugal made possible a spanish expansion outside the Americas that isn't possible otherwise that contributes greatly to Spain's wealth.
I always feel it regrettable when dual-nations are created, Sweden-Denmark and Spain-Portugal being the most common ones. If there at least is a player in the nation there to defend it it would be alright but the constant drops are really a shame. There is no nation that has the power to stop this in an early stage of a campaign so it's a ral bummer.
I said before, in response to cheech who brought that up:juv95hrn said:
So if I would've been approached by the GM, about a switch, I would have considered it. If encouraged or forced, I would gladly accepted it, since it would be the wish of the GM.Lurken said:
So very true. However, Portugal usually never goes towards the american gold, but rather spice and suger provs in Africa and Asia.Aladar said:
Yup. But my goal with Poland was only to get a somewhat historical thingy there. Since Poland didn't die until 1750s or something, besides...Russia can go to Siberia, or strike me together with BB, when Austria is wedged between France, OR and Venice. Poland should really only be a speedbump, not a twentyfoot wall. Poland now, is not that wall, but mearly a tenfootwall.Aladar said:
That is a common problem in many games. Perhaps it would be to the better if we created some leaders for Venice only for MP gaming.Aladar said:
Fredrik82 said:
I didn't say it was gamebreaking but unfortunate. You presence in this non-traditional areas are obviously also due to the missing player of Portugal that usually expands here. Austria has been vacant? I though Mulli played it all along. France was vacant last session but Portugal has been empty for a month. Was Portugla really played three sessions? I remember it more like one. She would have been needed in the far east as well. Another nation present over there on the new map would been a pleasure.
Lurken said:
Fred. It would seem that my intuition about your explanation turned out to be frightfully correct.
Another option i'm considering for my next game (Chill 5) is simply to delete all historical leaders and only give random leaders/explores to all nation.
While some nations still have demographic advantages, exploring would be a lot more spread out, as each would all of a sudden persue different exploring strategies which the new maps allowes for, especially one with few pagans.
And instead of waiting for the right leaders, wars would be fought more often i think, as you won't have to fear some uber leader with 10k cav that can beat you 200.000 infantry army with your random general.
While some nations still have demographic advantages, exploring would be a lot more spread out, as each would all of a sudden persue different exploring strategies which the new maps allowes for, especially one with few pagans.
And instead of waiting for the right leaders, wars would be fought more often i think, as you won't have to fear some uber leader with 10k cav that can beat you 200.000 infantry army with your random general.
That would be sweet. It is strange that so many wishes to have historical leaders, when random leaders will lead to more even play and more mayhem.Aladar said:
FAL said:
Are they? Then why are people always waiting for them to attack, or don't attack when others have them.
England, Austria and France atleast have way better leaders and many more too, than a lot of nations like Denmark, Sweden and Venice.
Aladar said:
...which is the balance. The game balances itself because everyone knows the leader file and knows when to confront strong nations before they become even more uber when they get a super leader.
With random leaders only, how exactly are you going to prevent a country with a string of luck from dominating the game? Picture France getting a couple of 5/5/5 or better leaders and Austria nothing and no one knows it before it's too late.
Now everyone knows that France will get Turenne and that they need to prepare for the onslaught. That's the balance I meant.
juv95hrn said:
Juv,
Do you mean this is some kind of known bug? Does it always happen that when you build a fleet in a port where you have such a double command you lose the newly built fleet if you try and merge it with the old?